3.5 Tome of Battle [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Townopolis

2010-05-20, 04:59 AM

It basically breaks down into whether or not your group likes to play classically (with blaster wizards and such) or high-powered (with batman wizards, CoDzillas, etc...)

ToB classes tend towards high-powered out of the box, which makes them OP in classic-style games. They're also very martial-artsy/wushu/wuxia and that's wrong to many gamers who like games where the fighter hits things and the wizard hits things.

If your group has begun to powergame their casters, whether intentionally or by accident, ToB classes are almost needed for anyone to play "fighters" without putting all their levels in cleric. It also appeals to players who like to have what is essentially a bunch of different buttons to choose from.

I am one of the latter. I didn't really care either way until my non-powergamer friends started making clerics and saying "I know I'm playing a caster, but my character is going to like to just buff up and hit things with a maul. It's not the most efficient way to play a cleric, but it's in character."

Greenish

2010-05-20, 05:00 AM

I guess that people are used to different magic systems, but having a different melee system is putting them off.

OldTrees

2010-05-20, 05:03 AM

IMO

I allow ToB but I do not see it as a replacement for At-Will martial classes
ToB introduced something new and that something new was valuable but it was structured more like spells. (note: not more like magic, more like spells) I think many were consciously or subconsciously turned of by this.

Other arguments I have seen include:
Its Anime/Wushia/_____ (its default is not the traditional medieval fantasy reality.)
Its magic when it shouldn't be. [categorically false, the non magical ToB class does not have any magical maneuvers]
I don't have it.
I don't want to include another source book.

huttj509

2010-05-20, 05:05 AM

The default flavor, as presented, is much more in the style of the 'action hero' flashier melee type. The more eye-catching of this is the swordsage, who can easily be interpreted as an over the top ninja-firebreathing style, which interpretation and more eastern flavor then gets applied to the book as a whole, in part unfairly.

Now when looked at more in depth it can be seen that with a good maneuver selection you can have more of a Conan or Galahad feel, without lighting your swords on fire, but first impressions color reactions.

Eldan

2010-05-20, 05:12 AM

A lot of this is my own opinion or based on my experiences, but the way I see it:

In 3.X, I never wanted to play anything other than casters. I'm using casters in the broad sense, since 3.5 started to include more and more subsystems. Psionics, Shadow magic, Binding, Incarnum, all fine by me. Because what I wanted in a character, mechanically, was mostly two things: the ability to use a class to create a wide variety of builds and abilities which are versatile and can be used tactically and intelligently in a wide variety of situations. In core, a wizard has dozens of spells of every level to choose from, while a fighter has half a dozen feats and then gets pressed into a specific type. His options are choosing a weapon and maybe one kind of combat trick to master, while the wizard gets tons of spells, among them such gems as my all time favourites, prestidigitation and image spells.

Tome of Battle changed that a lot: especially if you introduce the about three dozen homebrew schools floating around on these forums, your melee character can choose from a long list of abilities which are, in fact, used similarly to spells. Instead of having the options "I run up to enemy one and attack him, then full attack next round" and "I run up to enemy one and attack him, then try tripping next round", you have half a dozen different strikes, all with slightly more interesting effects than that. It also gives fighters the ability to at least somewhat fight back against casters, with abilities like Iron Heart Surge, which lets them shake off various conditions, or short distance teleports. Sadly, they still lack anything with the pure versatility of an illusion.

Now, from what I've seen, one of the main points of criticism seems to be that many of the abilities feel to supernatural for a purely mundane fighter. While it is possible to get by with, let's say, Stone Dragon, Diamond Mind and Iron Heart, all of which are mostly mundane, people dislike the ability of having fighters shoot flames from their swords, which I can understand to a degree.

So, TLDL: fighters get shiny toys which for some are too magical.

Prodan

2010-05-20, 05:14 AM

people dislike the ability of having fighters shoot flames from their swords
Unless it's the sword's enchantment producing the flame. That's ok.

Saph

2010-05-20, 05:17 AM

Greenish

2010-05-20, 05:24 AM

Irreverent Fool

2010-05-20, 05:26 AM

Beats me.

No-one especially cares if you don't want to use, say, Magic of Incarnum. But for some reason, any discussion on ToB in these forums has at least a 50% chance of turning into a flamewar.

You have people who've never met each other and are never in their entire lives going to sit down at the same gaming table, yet one side cares desperately about which books the other side allows in their game. It's a bit weird to be honest.

That's the whole internet, though. When beliefs can be argued without fear of retribution or uncomfortable personal interaction, they are.

I think the 'heated arguments' flamewars stem from those situations in which one player wants to play a martial character and is dissatisfied with the classic classes which tend to have only the options of "I hit it", "I run up and hit it", "I run up and hit it really hard", or "I defend myself" and yet their DM refuses to allow them to play a ToB class due to it being "overpowered" (how anyone can allow full casters and say anything from ToB is overpowered above level 5 is beyond me) or "too anime", while still allowing people to play wizards and refluff other classes. Or vice-versa. Hypocrisy upsets people.

I can't speak with any authority on the experiences of others, but I know my group was originally vehemently opposed to the book on the "too anime" grounds. The fact that the sidebars and intro spell out the fact that it is so influenced did nothing to appease us. We have one member to thank for actually buying the book, which none of us would have done. Once looking through it for mechanics and trying out some adepts, we realized that the options presented seemed for us to make martial-type characters way more fun than before.

obnoxious
sig

AslanCross

2010-05-20, 05:29 AM

Beats me.

No-one especially cares if you don't want to use, say, Magic of Incarnum. But for some reason, any discussion on ToB in these forums has at least a 50% chance of turning into a flamewar.

You have people who've never met each other and are never in their entire lives going to sit down at the same gaming table, yet one side cares desperately about which books the other side allows in their game. It's a bit weird to be honest.

Well, my reason for not using Magic of Incarnum is rather simple: I don't understand it at all. :smalleek: I've tried reading and rereading the book but I still don't get it.

Note, however, that MoI also has a solid Eastern feel to it, with the Chakras and all.

I think there might also be the sidebar in Tome of Battle where the book's authors admit to drawing inspiration from anime, video games and wuxia movies. That probably made the "Eastern" feel far more pronounced and then blown out of proportion.

Guy 1: "Hey, check it out. The latest melee-based book WOTC released draws some inspiration from anime."
Guy 2: "Oh? You're kidding me! It's anime inspired!" *calls girl 1*
Guy 2: "Hey, Girl 1! The newest WOTC book has anime fighting styles in it!"
Girl 1: "Oh, cool! Finally!" *calls guy 3* "Hey, the newest WOTC book has anime in it!"
Guy 3: "WHAT?!! THEY RELEASED AN ANIME SOURCEBOOK?!?! FOR D&D?!!?!? DEFILERS!!!!! :smallfurious:"

Guy 1 talks to Guy 3 later:
Guy 1: Hey, heard about Tome of Battle?
Guy 3: You mean the anime-based one? How could they?!
Guy 1: Well, not everything in it is---
Guy 3: BUT IT'S ANIME! It's WEEABOO FIGHTAN MAGIX!
Guy 1: Well that's jumping to conclusions--
Guy 3: YOU HAVE AN IRRATIONAL BIAS YOU WEEABOO!
Guy 1: SO DO YOU, YOU GROGNARD!
Guy 3: RAAAAARGH
Guy 1: RAAAAARGH

This conversation probably never happened IRL, but I think it's a good approximation of how these flame wars erupt.

(Note that I really detest the word "weeaboo.")

2xMachina

2010-05-20, 05:34 AM

MoI:

You 'make' slotless magic items (soulmelds).
You gain extra benefit from 'wearing' them in a slot. (Bind to slot, unlocked with class features)

At least, that's how I see it.

Greenish

2010-05-20, 05:37 AM

MoI:

You 'make' slotless magic items (soulmelds).
You gain extra benefit from 'wearing' them in a slot. (Bind to slot, unlocked with class features)

At least, that's how I see it.And when you're being shot at, you direct more power to the shields.

Irreverent Fool

2010-05-20, 05:37 AM

Well, my reason for not using Magic of Incarnum is rather simple: I don't understand it at all. :smalleek: I've tried reading and rereading the book but I still don't get it.

Me neither. I'll let my players use it if they want, but I haven't really bothered to familiarize myself with it, still. Shadowcasters (ToM), either.

I definitely got the "Eastern" feel before I read the sidebars. Even the names of the maneuvers inspires feelings that one is reading a system designed to mimic classic fighting cartoons. If one is familiar enough with the genre (even as camp), it's hard not to want to yell "Wolf! Fang! Strike!" and "Mith-i-ral Tor-na-DOO!".

Other spellcasters do it, anyway! Just look at V! Change spell-names and wizards are just as bad.

obnoxious
sig

Greenish

2010-05-20, 05:40 AM

I definitely got the "Eastern" feel before I read the sidebars. Even the names of the maneuvers inspires feelings that one is reading a system designed to mimic classic fighting cartoons. If one is familiar enough with the genre (even as camp), it's hard not to want to yell "Wolf! Fang! Strike!" and "Mith-i-ral Tor-na-DOO!".How dare you to claim that having names like "Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike" are anything like anime?!

Truly, I am shocked and offended. ;)

2xMachina

2010-05-20, 05:44 AM

And when you're being shot at, you direct more power to the shields.

lol.

Oh yeah, I forgot about essentia.

stenver

2010-05-20, 05:55 AM

Okei, so if i am getting this right, then ToB is despised simply, because some players dont like that in their game of D&D, which is already a game of epic magic, flaming swords, flying horses and so on and so forth, fighters also feel more awesome.

I must say, that entire D&D is anime(fighter 20 falling down from space.. twice.. triple, even 4 times and survives), so simply refusing to give them something interesting to do is just.. dumb.

and we all know, that tier 1 is overpowered, not ToB.

Yay, im a ToB fan now.

The Glyphstone

2010-05-20, 05:55 AM

Gnaeus

2010-05-20, 06:05 AM

Beats me.

No-one especially cares if you don't want to use, say, Magic of Incarnum. But for some reason, any discussion on ToB in these forums has at least a 50% chance of turning into a flamewar.

I would say that it is because ToB is all pretty balanced at Tier 3, which many players consider the sweet spot of gaming. ToM has some really badly balanced stuff (like Truenamer).

Also, because melee needed the help to play in high powered games, but I could make a good magical character long before ToM came along (and I still rarely use it.)

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-20, 06:09 AM

Now, from what I've seen, one of the main points of criticism seems to be that many of the abilities feel to supernatural for a purely mundane fighter. While it is possible to get by with, let's say, Stone Dragon, Diamond Mind and Iron Heart, all of which are mostly mundane, people dislike the ability of having fighters shoot flames from their swords, which I can understand to a degree.

So, TLDL: fighters get shiny toys which for some are too magical.

Disclaimer: I allow ToB in my games (refluffed Wind Dukes ancient battle secrets) and I like very much Tiger Claw, BTW.

My beef about the book is some maneuvers in Devoted Spirit are not (Su) while in Shadow Hand and Desert Wind are. Why? Why spread flames and shadows is (Su), when beat someone and trigger an Heal effect that removes a feeblemind is not?

ToB is a great book, but mainly because of special things and improvement about action economy can bring on the table. This is why one of my favourite maneuver is Sudden Leap, and things like "+100 to damage. Yeah, even if deliered with a fork" does not impress me so much.

BTW, the book is great and a big help for a lot of build and character concept, but I respectfully think that if your group can't play a meleer without ToB, you are in big troubles.

@ The Glyphstone: can I have some popcorn?

stenver

2010-05-20, 06:14 AM

And here we go, the weekly ToB thread.

*makes popcorn*

(Not anything against you, OP, but it's one of the cyclical arguments around here. Literally every week or two, a new ToB argument thread will pop up. They never end well.)

It will be an interesting chat. I would like to see any more arguments against ToB, besides Its Anime(which D&D is anyways) and fighters are more then fighters.
(And im waiting for someone to say that ToB classes are Over Powered)

huttj509

2010-05-20, 06:26 AM

It will be an interesting chat. I would like to see any more arguments against ToB, besides Its Anime(which D&D is anyways) and fighters are more then fighters.
(And im waiting for someone to say that ToB classes are Over Powered)

Wait, reverse that,

Anime is D&D! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_of_Lodoss_War)

Actually relevant. What does Parn do at the start of the series? Charges with his sword and misses. At the end? Exact same charge, but he hits.

Runestar

2010-05-20, 06:28 AM

(And im waiting for someone to say that ToB classes are Over Powered)

Far from it. What ToB does is to simply make melee fun again, by giving "fighters" options. More options than they have ever had and can ever hope to have.

To be able to move and still make the equivalent of a full attack? To not be screwed over by the first SoD which targets your will save? To be able to counter otherwise debilitating status effects? To possess a skill list that actually sees use? To be able to do something else other than damage and more damage?

Yes please! :smallbiggrin:

Saph

2010-05-20, 06:34 AM

I must say, that entire D&D is anime(fighter 20 falling down from space.. twice.. triple, even 4 times and survives), so simply refusing to give them something interesting to do is just.. dumb.

...

Yay, im a ToB fan now.

. . . and here we have a good example of why these threads usually turn into flamewars.

2xMachina

2010-05-20, 06:34 AM

Blergh, for me, when you think a class is overpowered, it's the other classes that are underpowered.

stenver

2010-05-20, 06:42 AM

Far from it. What ToB does is to simply make melee fun again, by giving "fighters" options. More options than they have ever had and can ever hope to have.

To be able to move and still make the equivalent of a full attack? To not be screwed over by the first SoD which targets your will save? To be able to counter otherwise debilitating status effects? To possess a skill list that actually sees use? To be able to do something else other than damage and more damage?

Yes please! :smallbiggrin:

Im well aware of that.. i just cant believe that someone could say that ToB classes are OP next to the wizard with his planes, druid with his crazy shapes and spells and.. you get the idead

Heliomance

2010-05-20, 06:44 AM

Blergh, for me, when you think a class is overpowered, it's the other classes that are underpowered.

In some cases, you're right. However things like Planar Shepherd actually are overpowered. D&D can't actually handle a game as high powered as it would be if all classes were brought up to Planar Shepherd level. You want that level of power? Play Exalted.

Irreverent Fool

2010-05-20, 06:48 AM

ToB is a great book, but mainly because of special things and improvement about action economy can bring on the table. This is why one of my favourite maneuver is Sudden Leap, and things like "+100 to damage. Yeah, even if deliered with a fork" does not impress me so much.

BTW, the book is great and a big help for a lot of build and character concept, but I respectfully think that if your group can't play a meleer without ToB, you are in big troubles.
At the level you get +100 to damage, you could have easily been doing far more by playing a shock trooper and being a one trick pony who does the same thing every combat. It looks impressive, but in practice, it isn't. How is killing someone with 100 damage from a fork any different that doing the same with a glorified butterknife dagger? Or your fist?

I don't think anyone suggested that a martial character can't be played without ToB. But you could say the same of any specific sourcebook, so I don't see why it's relevant.

. . . and here we have a good example of why these threads usually turn into flamewars.
I was going to point that out, myself, but I thought if I ignored it it might go away.

obnoxious
sig

Runestar

2010-05-20, 06:48 AM

Im well aware of that.. i just cant believe that someone could say that ToB classes are OP next to the wizard with his planes, druid with his crazy shapes and spells and.. you get the idead

To that, I would say it is more of a knee-jerk reaction. They see the big numbers involved (well, big relative to what they are normally accustomed to for melee anyways) and go ...OMG!!! BAROKEN!! Without stopping to consider the opportunity costs involved.

Notice that the first discipline to be listed is desert wind, which contains AoE fire damage maneuvers. The first thing to come to your mind is .... fireball! That ignores sr! Which the swordsage can use every encounter! Completely omitting the fact that the wizard got fireball many lvs earlier, and by that level, is easily doubling the damage output of your maneuvers.

Or you see strike of perfect clarity adding a solid +100 damage to your hit. Without realising that said maneuver replaces your full-attack, which easily does much more damage (albeit as a full-attack action).

I blame weapon spec for making players think that +2 damage/hit is the baseline for which other fighter stuff should be balanced against. :smallsigh:

The Glyphstone

2010-05-20, 06:50 AM

@ The Glyphstone: can I have some popcorn?

Help yourself.

*cast Summon Popcorn IX, uses Metamagic Effect to persist Extra Buttery Spell on the popcorn*

2xMachina

2010-05-20, 06:52 AM

In some cases, you're right. However things like Planar Shepherd actually are overpowered. D&D can't actually handle a game as high powered as it would be if all classes were brought up to Planar Shepherd level. You want that level of power? Play Exalted.

lol, yeah, certain Planar Shepherd is not only overpowered, but outright broken.

But a Planar Shepherd with a more normal plane? It's strong, but not too bad. At worst, throw in higher Cr.

And I kinda subscribe to the Wish Economy thing. Wishes are easy to get. 15k+ items? Not so much.

Emmerask

2010-05-20, 06:57 AM

Compared to high or med opt parties they are not op. But if you compare it in a low opt party environment where the best 3rd level spell evaaa!!! is fireball, yep I can certainly see why people think its op :smallwink:

Touchy

2010-05-20, 06:58 AM

It will be an interesting chat. I would like to see any more arguments against ToB, besides Its Anime(which D&D is anyways) and fighters are more then fighters.
(And im waiting for someone to say that ToB classes are Over Powered)
As someone who DOESN'T like anime, this bugs me.(The D&D is anime comment, ToB is pretty cool)
"Anime" isn't a genre, it's an animation style, which itself is very loose. DnD is a tabletop game, and while I have no seen much of the 3.5 artwork, the 4e artwork has a minor feel to it as animesque, but in itself, it's not "Anime". You can play and flavor it as anime, but even when you jump 400 feet, I doubt you are going to be having flashbacks even five minutes, you are not going to be Gainaxing you're female PCs breasts, tentacles aren't going to grope you(Well, not with that intent).. the main character's are(Probably) not a 12-year old boy who is angsty, or a princess who has no sense of modesty.

But now to actually get on topic, and to not derail this thread;
I like when martial character's get nice things, and can reasonably contribute to the party when a fighter would just stand there and wait for the actual combat, and reasonably would not leave me saying "I full attack". I'm glad 4e equalized all the power's too, so I can finally play a sword-and-board on par with a wizard.(Well, truly on par). I'm fine with the flavor, I can refluff as necessary, and the west also has had fantasy where a fighter can do supernatural feats, so I also have a source of inspiration as well.

Edit: Should have not taken a shower before posting.

mikej

2010-05-20, 06:59 AM

Im well aware of that.. i just cant believe that someone could say that ToB classes are OP next to the wizard with his planes, druid with his crazy shapes and spells and.. you get the idead

ToB helps but doesn't level the playing field to the "tier1" caster range.

In my experience alot of it came from the unknown factor. Also coupled with people whom have an affinity with stuff like PHB melee classes. At first It was always stuff like the Fighter or magic users like the Wizard. Then you add something entirely new like ToB or Psionics. Suddenly the Fighter isn't looking so great. The new stuff may not be "overpowered" when you sit down and do some comparison thinking but a lot of people don't like change or having what they like being made so irrelevant.

As for the Wuxia/Weeabo/Anime thing. Yeah, ToB does have some of that feel but it's not full fledge BESM here. It's entirely a group preference and has nothing really to do with the book itself.

Put me in the group of "Tome of Battle" fans. I have never had an issue and from what I can tell in my real-life group it's not an issue there either.

Jair Barik

2010-05-20, 07:03 AM

Going back to an early point about how some DM's disallow ToB on account of not having it this is something I completely agree on. As a DM I did not allow ToB in my games for that reason until I had myself got the book (I am talking about PbP internet games BTW) as it would be very easy for an argument to break out with players misreading, misunderstanding or simply cheating on the rules with me having no idea about it. If I didn't have ToM I wouldn't allow that, I don't have MoI so I don't allow that. With PrC and such it is generally okay as they follow the core rules but when an entirely new system of combat/casting gets involved it is significantly more complicated. I for one do like the ToB but at the same time I see why there is opposition to it.

Eldan

2010-05-20, 07:05 AM

BTW, the book is great and a big help for a lot of build and character concept, but I respectfully think that if your group can't play a meleer without ToB, you are in big troubles.

It's not that I can't play a meleer without ToB. Just that I'm bored by them.

Boci

2010-05-20, 07:07 AM

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-20, 07:08 AM

Help yourself.

*cast Summon Popcorn IX, uses Metamagic Effect to persist Extra Buttery Spell on the popcorn*

Thank you! I notice that since it is a (summoning) effect, and not a (calling) one, the fat intake will disappear in a number of round equal to twice your caster level. Nice!

It's not that I can't play a meleer without ToB. Just that I'm bored by them.

What would you do with a BECMI fighter? :smalltongue:

Answering to myself: weapon mastery rules are COOOL there. But see, this should merit a whole new thread because sometimes I think that adding a lot of things to this game, it's ended to decrease the things one can do...

Powerfamiliar

2010-05-20, 07:11 AM

ToB's "overpoweredness" depends entirely on you party's play style. Example from a game I ran a while back: The party was a SnB fighter, a feinty rogue, a healing favored soul and a blasty sorcerer, very classic. Then a player joins with a ToB character, the other players had not ever heard of ToB and after a few fights started considering the book OP and cheese. I'm sure whenever those players talk about ToB to other poeple they brign up the fact that it;s OP, even when for thier playstyle it might not.

That same party would've also considered a CoDzilla overpowered, but probably blame the player or "breaking the class", not the class as they can be, and often are, played very unoptimally. ToB classes are very good right out of the box and are hard to bring down to the power level of a classical party.

I don't agree with ToB bans, but I can understand why some parties do ban it.

Greenish

2010-05-20, 07:19 AM

Would you allow a warblade since the class and maneuvers is available online for free (legally)?

If anyone is interested:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225aThe problem with internet material on stuff you don't own is that there are omissions you might not even notice, and not being familiar with the system could lead to wrong conclusions.

For example, the table with warblade's highest known maneuver level is left out, so someone new to the system might think you can learn 3rd level maneuvers at warblade 3.

Eldariel

2010-05-20, 07:25 AM

There's an apparent need for a "Magic of Incarnum for dummies"-thread.

Crux of the matter though:
- Your race and class determine your essentia pool.
- Your class levels and feats determine how many Soulmelds you can bind.
- Your class levels determine how many of your Soulmelds can be bound to Chakras.

Then you:
- Choose which soulmelds you bind in the morning. You basically know all on your class list but can only bind as many as your class limit (or Con minus 10, whichever is lower) plus any Shape Soulmeld-feats you have.
- Choose which, if any, of the soulmelds to bind to Chakras for extra abilities (but taking that slot so you can't use a magic item there), up to your class maximum.
- Assign your essentia total between your soulmelds and any possible incarnum feats or other incarnum receptables. It's not spent, it's simply assigned to empower certain abilities and it's there until reassigned. Your essentia total is pretty much fixed; you can just assign the same pool in different ways.
- Your default maximum of essentia that can be invested to one essentia receptacle (soulmeld, feat, class feature, magic item or such) is 1 on levels 1-5, 2 on levels 6-10, 3 on levels 11-15 and 4 on levels 16-20. Some class features and feats increase this for specific chakras.

That's about it. Here's hoping at least someone finds Incarnum more accessible now.

Boci

2010-05-20, 07:35 AM

The problem with internet material on stuff you don't own is that there are omissions you might not even notice, and not being familiar with the system could lead to wrong conclusions.

For example, the table with warblade's highest known maneuver level is left out, so some new to the system might think you can learn 3rd level maneuvers at warblade 3.

True, but they should soon realize the mistake, especially since they should realize the similarities between maneuvers and spells, and if they want to use ToB they would have hopefully done sopme research.

Greenish

2010-05-20, 07:40 AM

True, but they should soon realize the mistake, especially since they should realize the similarities between maneuvers and spells, and if they want to use ToB they would have hopefully done sopme research.I'm all for using the free resources so that the players can enjoy ToB (even just one class), but I do think not having the book is a valid reason to deny it's use. Not every DM wants more homework. (Them lazy punks!)

Boci

2010-05-20, 07:45 AM

I'm all for using the free resources so that the players can enjoy ToB (even just one class), but I do think not having the book is a valid reason to deny it's use. Not every DM wants more homework. (Them lazy punks!)

I can understand it as well, I just have a different attitude when I DM. I allow pretty much anything and everything as long as the players are willing to type it up for me to see.

Trouvere

2010-05-20, 08:24 AM

Prodan

2010-05-20, 08:28 AM

crazedloon

2010-05-20, 08:37 AM

The replacement classes were narrower archetypes fluff-wise
I do not believe the fluff of any of the ToB classes are too strict or restricting or at least they are no more restricted than any other class, indeed swordsage fills many fluff concepts by itself

A Big Book o' Martial Feats could have given the same increase in power level to Fighters and Monks with respect to spellcasters as the Warblade and Swordsage have.

this is far from true. The reason this is far from true is the fact that so few feats actually scale (Which the maneuvers do) so these (and any other class which would take the "new feat" ) would simply just have more option. Also the monk at least is very feat starved as is so adding more options does not fix it. If you want to continue to play your fighter they have feats to grab maneuvers (which would be the equivalent of your big book of feats in 1 feat and a book with a new mechanic) and you will find it still does not help all that much.

2xMachina

2010-05-20, 08:42 AM

Tactical feats suck. They do fine, but feats are damn rare.

Foryn Gilnith

2010-05-20, 08:46 AM

Warblade is Fighter with more flexibility (more skill points). Crusader is Paladin with more flexibility (no RP restrictions). Swordsage is Monk, basically. ToB as a whole is "narrower" by the exclusion of the Ranger-type, but the classes themselves are more flexible.

Also, it's better to admit failure than to cover it up. Tome of Battle might be an inferior fix; but it's a fix nonetheless. Fighter, Paladin, and Monk aren't completely useless (they're good for dips, unlike a good half of the classes WotC published).

Emmerask

2010-05-20, 08:47 AM

Tactical feats suck. They do fine, but feats are damn rare.

Shock Trooper disagrees with you :smalltongue:

Trouvere

2010-05-20, 08:53 AM

this is far from true. The reason this is far from true is the fact that so few feats actually scale (Which the maneuvers do) so these (and any other class which would take the "new feat" ) would simply just have more option.It's far from true for ordinary feats, yes. Feats don't ordinarily scale, no. But there's no law that says they can't. The text of a feat could reference BAB, or class level, or character level, in such a way as to make its effects scale in exactly the same manner as (some) maneuvers do. A hypothetical feat-based ToB would of course have had feats that scaled.

Yeah, Monks would still be unsalvageable, barring some 'overpowered' Monk only tactical feats that granted the equivalent of.. I don't know.. 5 maneuvers. Enough that your average Monk could end up with the same number of maneuvers - by a different method - as a Swordsage.

2xMachina

2010-05-20, 08:55 AM

Yeah, but changing ToB to tactical feats? How many need you take? How many can you take?

Boci

2010-05-20, 08:57 AM

Yeah, but changing ToB to tactical feats? How many need you take? How many can you take?

Plus how different would it be to ToB?

Trouvere

2010-05-20, 09:03 AM

Warblades get, what, about 20 maneuvers plus stances plus bonus feats? And Swordsages about 30? And they prepare at low levels nearly every one they know, but at higher levels about half at any one time?

Fighters get 11 bonus feats. So, each tactical feat would have to provide two to three maneuver-like abilities.

Honestly, I don't play enough everything-and-the-kitchen sink 3.5 to much care about the details, let alone make any attempt at a conversion. It's just how I wish the better-at-these-things-than-me people at WotC had done it in the first place.

Boci

2010-05-20, 09:06 AM

Warblades get, what, about 20 maneuvers plus stances plus bonus feats? And Swordsages about 30? And they prepare at low levels nearly every one they know, but at higher levels about half at any one time?

Fighters get 11 bonus feats. So, each tactical feat would have to provide two to three maneuver-like abilities.

Honestly, I don't play enough everything-and-the-kitchen sink 3.5 to much care about the details, let alone making any attempt at a conversion. It's just how I wish the better-at-these-things-than-me people at WotC had done it in the first place.

So you've got a fighter that gets maneuvers instead of feats. Isn't that a warblade?

Trouvere

2010-05-20, 09:08 AM

So you've got a fighter that gets maneuvers instead of feats. Isn't that a warblade?

Well, yeah. The end result is an empowered fighter.

For me, it's just a philosophical thing. Spellcasters get, well, spells. Fighters, bless 'em, get bonus feats. Everyone needs quadratically scaling abilities, it seems. I find it more elegant to give the Fighter those abilities using the only class feature he already has than to retire him and introduce a fighter-with-pretend-spells-shhhh.

Greenish

2010-05-20, 09:10 AM

Warblades get, what, about 20 maneuvers plus stances plus bonus feats?13 maneuvers (of which they can ready 7) and four stances over 20 levels. It seems people always overestimate the number.

Thrice Dead Cat

2010-05-20, 09:12 AM

Well, yeah. The end result is an empowered fighter.

For me, it's just a philosophical thing. Spellcasters get, well, spells. Fighters, bless 'em, get bonus feats. Everyone needs quadratically scaling abilities, it seems. I find it more elegant to give the Fighter those abilities using the only class feature he already has than to retire him and introduce a fighter-with-pretend-spells-shhhh.

The issue I have with this methodology is that, honestly, Fighter 2 does mesh well with the ToB classes to delay maneuvers and hit in some more feats. I understand the approach, and it isn't a bad one, but, even with its issues, at least having the fighter class around for a dip can be useful. That and I love me some dungeoncrasher on top of some Warblading.

Boci

2010-05-20, 09:15 AM

The issue I have with this methodology is that, honestly, Fighter 2 does mesh well with the ToB classes to delay maneuvers and hit in some more feats. I understand the approach, and it isn't a bad one, but, even with its issues, at least having the fighter class around for a dip can be useful. That and I love me some dungeoncrasher on top of some Warblading.

Yeah, I just rename the warblade as fighter. The PHB fighter mechanically represents your character taking a crash course to quickly learn the gist of some skill/fighting style.

Well, yeah. The end result is an empowered fighter.

For me, it's just a philosophical thing. Spellcasters get, well, spells. Fighters, bless 'em, get bonus feats. Everyone needs quadratically scaling abilities, it seems. I find it more elegant to give the Fighter those abilities using the only class feature he already has than to retire him and introduce a fighter-with-pretend-spells-shhhh.

So just pretend the maneuvers are instead feats?

Tiki Snakes

2010-05-20, 09:18 AM

I personally believe that if they had dismembered the TOB classes and made them available as a bumper load of awesome tactical feats, the same people who dislike TOB would have cried foul at the 'over-powered' feats, and banned their sourcebook anyway. Especially as they'd have imposed various extra rules bits into the fighter (etc) and made martial types unrealistically capable of comparing to arcane types.

Or something like that. :smallwink:
Martial Characters can't have nice things. True Story.

Eldan

2010-05-20, 09:19 AM

Well, the problem with this course would be that these new Maneuver feats would be significantly more powerful than just about every feat in the PHB available to fighter archetypes.
So, instead of ripping out the pages containing the fighter, monk and paladin, you just rip out half the feats. Why take weapon focus instead of a feat giving a stance and a strike?

...

Okay, why take weapon focus now, but still.

Eldariel

2010-05-20, 09:21 AM

Okay, why take weapon focus now, but still.

Hey, Weapon Focus is totally awesome for Core Fighter since you have no other feats left to take! Now then, the decision to go Core Fighter can be questioned, but...

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-20, 09:28 AM

Sometimes I think that WotC should have simply recovered the concept of Martial Arts from Oriental Adventures, and expand/improve it.

Martial Arts worked this way: if you have some combination of combat feats (thematically connected generally speaking) you gain a free benefit.

Think about something like this:

If you have Power Attack, Cleave and Improved Bull Rush, You gain Shock Trooper for free. This works, IMO, because you can see that whose gaining feats faster (fighter) gain these benefits faster, too, mantaining their class advantage and privileges.

Maneuvers like sudden leap could be implemented basing on skill ranks (Jump: 12 you gain sudden leap.. or: Sudden leap jumping with -10).

Finally.. yeah, combat feats should scale. i alway say this, but I see why they didn't made them this way: what happens when casters take them?

Eldan

2010-05-20, 09:29 AM

Well, that's a thing I'd have done anyway, adding more benefits to skills. Most of them just do one thing. Even worse are skills which have a set maximum benefit, like tumble.

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-20, 09:37 AM

Well, that's a thing I'd have done anyway, adding more benefits to skills. Most of them just do one thing. Even worse are skills which have a set maximum benefit, like tumble.

Knight (PHII) is a nice exception to tumble rules

Pathfinder did something to this: now is acrobatics vs CMD.

This could be said for weapon focus, too: weapon focus (Guisarme) adds +1 to, say, trip, disarm, and sunder attempts made with that weapon (in 3.5 +1 to a touch attack was, generally speaking, worthless).

The Cat Goddess

2010-05-20, 09:41 AM

Personally, when one of my players wanted to use the book... I said "no". I hadn't studied the book and a quick glance showed me that the mechanics weren't something I could easily understand in an hour or two. The Crusader mechanics were really bizarre at first glance. :smallbiggrin:

Once I had enough free time (and he loaned me the book), I studied it and said "okay". Of course, we've still had problems... one player "readied" Shadow Jaunt four times for his Cleric/Swordsage so he could teleport/cast multiple times per fight. :smallfurious:

Well, that's a thing I'd have done anyway, adding more benefits to skills. Most of them just do one thing. Even worse are skills which have a set maximum benefit, like tumble.

Never tried tumbling through a group of large/huge creatures, eh? DC 25 (occupied square) +2 for each additional creature that threatens...

There's an apparent need for a "Magic of Incarnum for dummies"-thread.

Crux of the matter though:
- Your race and class determine your essentia pool.
- Your class levels and feats determine how many Soulmelds you can bind.
- Your class levels determine how many of your Soulmelds can be bound to Chakras.

Then you:
- Choose which soulmelds you bind in the morning. You basically know all on your class list but can only bind as many as your class limit (or Con minus 10, whichever is lower) plus any Shape Soulmeld-feats you have.
- Choose which, if any, of the soulmelds to bind to Chakras for extra abilities (but taking that slot so you can't use a magic item there), up to your class maximum.
- Assign your essentia total between your soulmelds and any possible incarnum feats or other incarnum receptables. It's not spent, it's simply assigned to empower certain abilities and it's there until reassigned. Your essentia total is pretty much fixed; you can just assign the same pool in different ways.
- Your default maximum of essentia that can be invested to one essentia receptacle (soulmeld, feat, class feature, magic item or such) is 1 on levels 1-5, 2 on levels 6-10, 3 on levels 11-15 and 4 on levels 16-20. Some class features and feats increase this for specific chakras.

That's about it. Here's hoping at least someone finds Incarnum more accessible now.

Buh? :smalleek:

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-20, 09:44 AM

Buh? :smalleek:

I suppose this means: "better deserve to MoI a more in-depth explanation in a dedicated thread"

AslanCross

2010-05-20, 09:52 AM

I think my objection to ToB was that it pretty much was an admission of defeat by WotC. "Buy ToB, then open up your PHB and rip out pages 37 through 45 (or even 48 or 50); you won't be needing them anymore."

The replacement classes were narrower archetypes fluff-wise, overlaid with a kind of pseudo spell progression (that, to me, felt clunky and forced into place... as indeed it rather was, being a kind of 3.5 pre-test of 4e systems).

But I don't have a problem with the actual game effects of the maneuvers, 95% of the time. I just wish ToB, instead of being a whole new subsystem, had presented these abilities as Tactical Feats, as introduced in Complete Warrior.

A Big Book o' Martial Feats could have given the same increase in power level to Fighters and Monks with respect to spellcasters as the Warblade and Swordsage have.

Such a missed opportunity (though utterly irrelevant now, since the entirety of 3.5 has been 'obsoleted' for a system in which nearly every class uses the same system, though with varying practical outcomes).

I never saw ToB as a replacement. I've played a Fighter/Warblade. Players of mine have used Rogue/Swordsages, Paladin/Crusaders and Ranger/Swordsages. I didn't see the book supplanting existing material; I thought of it as one of the best reasons to continue playing those classes, even as dips or multiclasses. The mere fact that multiclassing with ToB is easy and doesn't horribly gimp your progression in either class is IMO a great boon for PHB classes.

As for a feat book---feats are fun, but as has been mentioned, they're a lofty investment you aren't sure you'll be able to use often enough to justify locking onto it for the rest of your PC's career.

HunterOfJello

2010-05-20, 10:38 AM

As a DM, I prefer the Tome of Battle to all of the original melee classes for my players. The players who have used Tome of Battle classes had a lot of fun playing a powerful stylized melee character than they did playing a Fighter or Monk as they had before.

I also made a DMPC who was a Gold Dwarf Crusader to build up interest for ToB, but had to retire him after 2 sessions because he kicked way too much butt protecting the spellcaster and healing everyone like crazy.

I've only heard a few explanations for ToB hate that I think are generally valid. I can understand if a group likes to play a game of more traditional D&D and sticks to the core books with only a few additions to things. ToB gave its three melee classes mixed roles by making them hybrids of previous classes, so I can understand a dislike for it from that perspective.

As brought up earlier, if you party likes playing underpowered for flawed characters who have to really band together to get things done in a gritty campaign or just prefer to roleplay more than fight, then the old melee classes can work great. But, if your players are powergamers and two out of the four choose the more prominent spellcasters (wizard, druid, cleric, archivist, artificer, sorcerer, favored soul, psion, etc.), then you better have the other two players pick Tome of Battle classes unless they want to fall behind immediately after level 6 or so.

~

I can also understand complaints about the style and fluff of the ToB classes, but all of those arguments are pointless. If you don't like the fluff behind a character class or race, then change it or make your character the exception. I hate characters that are completely opposites of what the book archetypes are created for (ex. Good-aligned Drow), but it takes a whole 2 minutes to refluff a character concept completely.

nightwyrm

2010-05-20, 10:55 AM

Once I had enough free time (and he loaned me the book), I studied it and said "okay". Of course, we've still had problems... one player "readied" Shadow Jaunt four times for his Cleric/Swordsage so he could teleport/cast multiple times per fight. :smallfurious:

Then your player was in error. You cannot ready a menuver more than once.

Ingus

2010-05-20, 11:08 AM

To come back to the original question, I think that there isn't just one answer.
However, I can provide some example of cons to ToB. Some of them may seem very silly, but I believe they're well balanced with the ones really sensible.

One player I know really hates ToB. He says it spoils 20 years of traditional D&D. By the way, I've known him when my group started play 3.0 and since then, he always played a wizard. Plus, he always played the same wizard: selfish, arrogant, power-starved with a great sense of superiority towards anyone else (yes, Raistlin-like). This often ended in in game fights, in which his PC easily won. Until a fighter/warblade...

A DM I know only allows books he has or knows very well. He always says that ToB is too complicated to be mastered - and a DM should always master a handbook.

A couple of players I know consider it very manga-style. They don't like nor allow when DMing ToB, as much as ToM or psyonics or other "strange things".

My favoured group is "optimization free". Yes, they still match equipment with power, they still use good feats or spells, but yuo'll never see them go ClericZilla or something. When someone builds a wizard, druid or cleric, it usually come out arount tier 3 if not 4 and everyone's happy. In this group most of the handbooks are allowed, ToB not.
They feel it's impossibile to scale down and keep there a swordsage, to say. I'm an optimizer and in order to play with them I often had to discard or scale down good builds. Put it straight: if someone caps tier 2, the other players would feel the need to optimize too or they'll feel deprived of opportunities. So no ToB.

Boci

2010-05-20, 11:18 AM

To come back to the original question, I think that there isn't just one answer.
However, I can provide some example of cons to ToB. Some of them may seem very silly, but I believe they're well balanced with the ones really sensible.

One player I know really hates ToB. He says it spoils 20 years of traditional D&D. By the way, I've known him when my group started play 3.0 and since then, he always played a wizard. Plus, he always played the same wizard: selfish, arrogant, power-starved with a great sense of superiority towards anyone else (yes, Raistlin-like). This often ended in in game fights, in which his PC easily won. Until a fighter/warblade...

This one can just be discarded. It holds no water.

A DM I know only allows books he has or knows very well. He always says that ToB is too complicated to be mastered - and a DM should always master a handbook.

This one I can understand, but it does not always apply. It is possibly to have good games even when the DM does not understand the rules that well, or all the books in play.

A couple of players I know consider it very manga-style. They don't like nor allow when DMing ToB, as much as ToM or psyonics or other "strange things".

This one can usually be sorted out by changing the flavour, akthough it is sometimes very tricky.

My favoured group is "optimization free". Yes, they still match equipment with power, they still use good feats or spells, but yuo'll never see them go ClericZilla or something. When someone builds a wizard, druid or cleric, it usually come out arount tier 3 if not 4 and everyone's happy. In this group most of the handbooks are allowed, ToB not.
They feel it's impossibile to scale down and keep there a swordsage, to say. I'm an optimizer and in order to play with them I often had to discard or scale down good builds. Put it straight: if someone caps tier 2, the other players would feel the need to optimize too or they'll feel deprived of opportunities. So no ToB.

This one is fair enough, but just a nit pick: ToB classes are tier 3 not 2.

2xMachina

2010-05-20, 11:31 AM

Tier 2 is Tier 1 power, without the versatility.

You don't get that without being a caster of some kind IIRC.

Lycanthromancer

2010-05-20, 02:32 PM

Tier 2 is Tier 1 power, without the versatility.

You don't get that without being a caster of some kind IIRC.Certain hulking hurler builds could potentially be considered tier 2, considering the things they can do.

Other than that, it's really difficult to get the power level needed for that kind of thing.

cfalcon

2010-05-20, 03:31 PM

Oslecamo

2010-05-20, 03:50 PM

Tier 2 is Tier 1 power, without the versatility.

You don't get that without being a caster of some kind IIRC.

A couple of scrolls of PaO or a candle of invocation and enough cheese can do whatever you need.

Thrice Dead Cat

2010-05-20, 03:54 PM

Just ban the book if you don't want to have the action cartoon flavor with oddly limited resources and strange magical abilities, some of which are tagged EX. It's not hard. Zealots aside, the book isn't really that popular, probably because it deprecates archetypes like paladin, ranger, fighter, monk, in exchange for oddly generic classes with ahistorical names.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.:smalltongue: As for the "ahistorical names bit," when you've got pew pew magic missiles and Goddesses with five dragon heads who never possessed said heads in the original myths, history kind of takes a back seat.

Or allow it. You'll get better game balance if you are already allowing casters to run around like the tiny gods the rules grant them, and you'll have a decent variety of abilities and powers. You can, as the vocal minority will suggest (and then ram down your throat, given enough pages), simply reflavor the 9swords optional expansion material should you like the game balance or mechanics but dislike the cartoon shenanigans.

Hey now, the flavor of ToB isn't the worst thing WotC shot out over the course of 3.5! I also attend that changing the marshmallows to be a valid option for when good crunch goes for a bad boy as a partner.

Basically, you should be making your decision based on what your players want, and based on what you are comfortable running with. Just make sure you don't wind up with one guy who wants to play like, straight melee Ranger, and someone else with a stack of books and pseodospell maneuvers, because that won't be much fun.

Yeah, I agree with the premise here. Although, to be fair, if someone was just playing a core wizard, they could probably out do the above Ranger. More splats does not equate to moar power: they help melee as well as casters. The issue is more to do with the players and their differences in either optimization, skill, or what have you at building a character than what they may be playing.

I really think these threads should be instantly closed, or moved to some subforum, maybe with like, threads on politics. Make a special argument forum for them!

I would argue you on that; naturally, for the sake of argument.:smalltongue:

Honestly, I'm largely be facetious in my post.

balistafreak

2010-05-20, 03:59 PM

Zealots aside, the book isn't really that popular, probably because it deprecates archetypes like paladin, ranger, fighter, monk, in exchange for oddly generic classes with ahistorical names.

I don't understand this, personally. Why wouldn't you want the class to be generic and flexible with ahistorical names? Then you can flavor it however you want, fill in your archetype that way, and everyone's happy. :smallconfused:

It lets you dodge topics like the dread Monk confusion. No, nothing to do with Monk mechanics, but rather the confusion Monk gets when players confuse the Western scholarly friar with the Eastern kung-fu ascetic. Many a facepalm has occured when a newer player says he wants to be a Monk and gets handed some sort of unarmed master. "Hey, I wanted to play an intellectual! What's going on!"

Even worse is when they don't realize this and you have European monks punching people in the face. Gaaa! That is not at all historical!

/tangent

It's not about what you're called, but how you act. Generic classes go a long way towards letting people play what they want.

Random NPC

2010-05-20, 04:06 PM

(Note that I really detest the word "weeaboo.")

http://gargarstegosaurus.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/pbf071-weeaboo.gif

As someone who DOESN'T like anime, this bugs me.(The D&D is anime comment, ToB is pretty cool)
"Anime" isn't a genre, it's an animation style, which itself is very loose. DnD is a tabletop game, and while I have no seen much of the 3.5 artwork, the 4e artwork has a minor feel to it as animesque, but in itself, it's not "Anime". You can play and flavor it as anime, but even when you jump 400 feet, I doubt you are going to be having flashbacks even five minutes, you are not going to be Gainaxing you're female PCs breasts, tentacles aren't going to grope you(Well, not with that intent).. the main character's are(Probably) not a 12-year old boy who is angsty, or a princess who has no sense of modesty.

There's way better Anime than that :smalltongue:

And as it has been said over and over. ToB gives you options. Yes, some people may not want it, but options are always good. Reason why modern politics, capitalism and Network TV work, right?

IonDragon

2010-05-20, 04:08 PM

I just want to say this, though I'm sure it's someplace in this thread already. Warblades can refresh their maneuvers in combat an unlimited number of times. I think some people feel that this makes them better than Wizards since they can't really 'run out' of maneuvers. However, most Warblade Maneuvers are basically "I hit him extra hard" or "I hit him in a different way". Yes, ToB classes are more powerful than Monk or Fighter. That's GOOD.

Thank you, and good day.

AslanCross

2010-05-20, 04:18 PM

http://gargarstegosaurus.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/pbf071-weeaboo.gif

Yeah, that. I never really understood why that was so memetic in its nature that the term has evolved into a derogatory insult for a broad spectrum of people, from the "hey, I watch some anime" type to the "creepy otaku" type. If it has a point, it flies right over my head.

Just ban the book if you don't want to have the action cartoon flavor with oddly limited resources and strange magical abilities, some of which are tagged EX. It's not hard. Zealots aside, the book isn't really that popular, probably because it deprecates archetypes like paladin, ranger, fighter, monk, in exchange for oddly generic classes with ahistorical names.

Or allow it. You'll get better game balance if you are already allowing casters to run around like the tiny gods the rules grant them, and you'll have a decent variety of abilities and powers. You can, as the vocal minority will suggest (and then ram down your throat, given enough pages), simply reflavor the 9swords optional expansion material should you like the game balance or mechanics but dislike the cartoon shenanigans.

Basically, you should be making your decision based on what your players want, and based on what you are comfortable running with. Just make sure you don't wind up with one guy who wants to play like, straight melee Ranger, and someone else with a stack of books and pseodospell maneuvers, because that won't be much fun.

I really think these threads should be instantly closed, or moved to some subforum, maybe with like, threads on politics. Make a special argument forum for them!

Honestly, I think it's posts like this that cause me to want to post a string of arguments, but I've promised myself that since this thread is more about why people fight over it instead of whether A or B is correct, I wouldn't post any of my arguments. This thread has been going fine so far and nobody has been calling anybody else names, so I'd rather not start now.

Debates are not necessarily flame wars, and I do think it is possible to convince people without the needless shouting that Tome of Battle threads (among others) usually involve. It has happened.

Flame wars should be locked, yes. Debates, however, are a way of getting ideas across. As long as they are kept civil, I don't think they should be locked. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

Touchy

2010-05-20, 04:45 PM

There's way better Anime than that :smalltongue:

Meh, there are a select few I like, that select few is slim, really just Cowboy Bebop, Ghost in the Shell, and one I cannot remember the name of for the life of me, though I never seek them out actively. I was also mostly tackling JRPG stereotypes.

Yeah, that. I never really understood why that was so memetic in its nature that the term has evolved into a derogatory insult for a broad spectrum of people, from the "hey, I watch some anime" type to the "creepy otaku" type. If it has a point, it flies right over my head.
4chan had it as a censor for wapanese. The word itself is overused, it's actually used for insulting the annoying fans. A quote of urban dictionary summarize it best.

1. Any self-proclaiming anime fan who alienates themselve from their own society and assimilate into the Japanese culture from which they know little-to-none about; using their so-called anime knowledge as a guide, which destined them to ultimate failure in assimilation. 2. A special breed of anime fans who put Japan on a pedastol and prefer them over any other countries in terms of multimedia, courtship, etc... (E.g. prefer Japanese/Asian sprouses, prefer J-music > Amer. music, wanna live and die Japan, etc...) As far as anime goes, they know only little. For example, the average weeaboo knows only americanized anime; preferly uncut with jap. audio and eng. subs ( E.g. Naruto, DBZ, Bleach, Haruhi Suziyama, Lucky Star, etc...) and memorized every japanese song from their favorite shows.

Note: Anybody who watches some anime and reads manga are not weeaboos. Those who go over-broaded with their anime, hentai, and pocky obsession are.

Edit: After 3 edits of that quote I found one that isn't just purely insulting, and is closer to the truth.

Frozen_Feet

2010-05-20, 05:48 PM

I'll stop by just to advocate the use of "Shounen" to describe ToB, for those who hate it. :smallwink: For those not familiar with the term, shounen refers to anime and manga produced for young boys. It contains such famous pieces of work as Dragon Ball, Naruto and Bleach. It's where you're most likely to find adolescent power fantasies, ultimate secret techniques, larger-than-life heroes and awesome battles.

Of course, when you stop to think of it, even vanilla D&D is largely about those things. Excuse me, my Wizard has to kamehameh... er, fireball things in the face.:smallwink:

Thrice Dead Cat

2010-05-20, 06:09 PM

Piedmon_Sama

2010-05-20, 06:22 PM

TBH, I've only really seen a Tome of Battle character in action once, and it wasn't very impressive. I was running a dungeoncrawl for this party of four, later five, that went from level three to four when we finished. It was a human knight, armed with bastard sword and heavy shield, a half-elf hexblade with a greatsword, a scimitar-and-crossbow wielding orc rogue, and this human sorcerer 1/swordsage 2, who wielded a longsword and a wand of magic missile.

The sorcerer/swordsage went down the least, but that was mainly because after botching his concentration check for Sapphire Nightmare Diamond Strike almost every time, he pretty much gave up on melee and just sat back with his wand. The knight and hexblade went down sometimes, but they had moments to shine. The Swordsage, in spite of having a pretty damn good Concentration check for his level, always failed to pull off his go-to technique, and spent most of the game ingloriously covering the rear.

Was the guy unlucky, or is Nightmare Sapphire Strike or whatever just a bad choice? I don't know. From what I saw, I think the difference in power may be overrated.

Tinydwarfman

2010-05-20, 06:26 PM

Just ban the book if you don't want to have the action cartoon flavor with oddly limited resources and strange magical abilities, some of which are tagged EX. It's not hard. Zealots aside, the book isn't really that popular, probably because it deprecates archetypes like paladin, ranger, fighter, monk, in exchange for oddly generic classes with ahistorical names.
1. "action cartoon flavor" - you say this like it's a fact. Many people have made comparisons against a Warblade and a Fighter doing their thing, and it's impossible to tell the difference. A Cleric is probably the most DBZ like character, followed by an Enlightened Fist.
2. "oddly limited resources" - Not exactly sure what you're talking about here.
3. "strange magical abilities, some of which are tagged EX" - This I agree with. Many devoted spirit maneuvers should be tagged (Su)
4. "Zealots aside" - Oh come on. When was the last time we tried to shove ToB down people's throats? Please name a thread. I am blissfully ignorant of my compatriots wrongdoings.
5. "oddly generic classes with ahistorical names." - I have to agree with Thrice Dead Cat here. Why are generic classes bad? I like the genericness. IMO, base classes should be broad, and PrC's narrow, but that doesn't seem to be the way D&D is trending unfortunately.

Or allow it. You'll get better game balance if you are already allowing casters to run around like the tiny gods the rules grant them, and you'll have a decent variety of abilities and powers. You can, as the vocal minority will suggest (and then ram down your throat, given enough pages), simply reflavor the 9swords optional expansion material should you like the game balance or mechanics but dislike the cartoon shenanigans.

How do you nerf casters BTW? Completely serious here. I have been looking for some good anti-caster houserules.

Back on topic,

as the vocal minority will suggest (and then ram down your throat, given enough pages),
Jesus, you sound like Fox News. "The Zealots are trying to ram Tome of Battle down America's throat!"

Basically, you should be making your decision based on what your players want, and based on what you are comfortable running with. Just make sure you don't wind up with one guy who wants to play like, straight melee Ranger, and someone else with a stack of books and pseodospell maneuvers, because that won't be much fun.
Well, yeah, discourage powergaming. Also encourage replicating a Ranger with swordsage or Warblade as long as he is melee. Party balance will be much more even. My biggest beef with ToB is that is does not support archery... :smallfrown:

I really think these threads should be instantly closed, or moved to some subforum, maybe with like, threads on politics. Make a special argument forum for them!
Indeed, we should have a special forum where we can discuss religion, politics, and ToB! Because the have about the same flame rate!

But as long as everyone is civil, I have no problem with these threads (says the person who made one, but still)

Eldariel

2010-05-20, 06:34 PM

Was the guy unlucky, or is Nightmare Sapphire Strike or whatever just a bad choice? I don't know. From what I saw, I think the difference in power may be overrated.

Sapphire Nightmare Blade is meant for things like Sneak Attack and such; it makes the target flat-footed. Also, obviously you want some Constitution if you use Concentration-based attacks regularly. Chances are unless his Concentration was at least +10, he shouldn't be using it. Even then, it's questionable on those levels without Rogue-levels or such. As such, I'd wager he was simply playing somewhat suboptimally. Also, a Sorc 1/SS 2 is kinda at a weak spot since he doesn't get IL 2 maneuvers nor level 2 spells, which at that juncture are both huge.

Also, he seems to have misunderstood Swordsage; the whole idea is that they don't have one go-to tech but a huge variety of maneuvers, boosts and counters; they know a lot of them and are mostly valuable for their versatility. It's also the worst of the three classes. But yeah, ToB classes still play the same game as everyone else; your perception is correct in that they aren't overwhelmingly powerful compared to other non-casters. They do have more versatility though, which makes all the difference. And, while they sorta self-optimize, a skilled builder can still get a lot more out of them of course.

pinwiz

2010-05-20, 06:43 PM

Well, yeah, discourage powergaming. Also encourage replicating a Ranger with swordsage or Warblade as long as he is melee. Party balance will be much more even. My biggest beef with ToB is that is does not support archery... :smallfrown:

yeah, the lack of archery thing has been the thing that's bugged me most about ToB.

I actually like ToB a lot, mostly because it allows me to be a tough guy with options, instead of a tough guy with feats. But I have no clue why people insta-ban ToB, and the reasons this thread has listed seem really weak to me.

Ingus

2010-05-20, 06:49 PM

@Boci: I didn't mean to support the "no Tome of Battle" side, only show the motivations of some people I know, just to have a richer discussion.
As you probably already noticed, the opinions are in order of "respectability" (pass me the term, please :smallwink:).
So the firs is really stupid, the fourth I strongly believe is a mechanical problem: with ToB classes, you are in tier 3 without any optimization and you have to fight to scale down, choosing a particularily bad assortment of maneuvers, stances and feats. Just to be clear, making a wizard by the PH (their stye) should put you more or less in the same tier, maybe below.
Just to say, with ToB, MIC PH2 and core rulebook, I've put on paper a warblade/fighter level 12 capable to doing more than 1k hp of damage per round, flying, with blindsight and a handful of useful maneuvers. I guess it is in tier 2 :D

SilveryCord

2010-05-20, 07:02 PM

Just to say, with ToB, MIC PH2 and core rulebook, I've put on paper a warblade/fighter level 12 capable to doing more than 1k hp of damage per round, flying, with blindsight and a handful of useful maneuvers. I guess it is in tier 2 :D

No, that is still not tier 2.

The Glyphstone

2010-05-20, 07:05 PM

Ingus

2010-05-20, 07:20 PM

Tiers do not rate on damage, but flexibility/versatility. 1K damage is a lot, making that character excellent at doing HP damage in combat. He's not going to be able to contribute much outside of combat, and he definitely won't be able to singlehandedly win campaigns like a well-built T2 would.

I guess I have to read more about tiers, I totally misunderstood the thing...
So please consider "tiers" as intended of "raw power" :smallwink:

Prodan

2010-05-20, 07:24 PM

I guess I have to read more about tiers, I totally misunderstood the thing...
So please consider "tiers" as intended of "raw power" :smallwink:

Sorcerers (tier 2 by the other definition) are still somewhere above you, in that they can deal over 1k damage, fly, have blindsense, and more than a few useful spells besides.

Runestar

2010-05-20, 07:26 PM

I guess I have to read more about tiers, I totally misunderstood the thing...
So please consider "tiers" as intended of "raw power" :smallwink:

A hulking hurler can easily do a million damage (+1d4 fire damage) with a uranium beach ball (thanks to the borked throwing damage rules in complete warrior). He still qualifies under tier4 because he is a 1-trick pony with no other options under his belt. :smallwink:

Hand_of_Vecna

2010-05-20, 07:32 PM

The main reason ToB is so polarizing is that it shifts the balance of fullcasters vs guys that hit things with sticks further in favor of the latter then any previous supplement. So, this leads to very strong feelings on both sides.

Those who feel the game was fairly balanced as is find the book incredibly game breaking while those who feel that casters dominate the game see ToB as a desperately needed partial fix.

Both camps believe that the inclusion/exclusion of ToB completely shatters any semblence of game balance.

Also ToB classes perform at a moderatly high level of power with very little effort put into optimization but, they are also relatively hard to break. This makes them overpowering some groups where both casters and mellee are poorly or minimally optimized angering those groups while on the otherside there aren't ToB builds that can measure up to the tricks of the iconic one-trick-pony non-ToB mellee builds making much of the pro-ToB crowd angry that others can't see the disparity.

Tinydwarfman

2010-05-20, 07:41 PM

A hulking hurler can easily do a million damage (+1d4 fire damage) with a uranium beach ball (thanks to the borked throwing damage rules in complete warrior). He still qualifies under tier4 because he is a 1-trick pony with no other options under his belt. :smallwink:

Actually I would qualify a hulking hurler as much higher because of his ridiculous brokenness. When you can hold the entire world hostage, you tend to get a little more sway in the eyes of the people. I'd say tier 3, because of the variety of things you can do with a little ingenuity, and really big rock. Also, Hulking Hurler is only a 3 level prestige class. There's a lot of free space after that for diversifying.

AslanCross

2010-05-20, 08:55 PM

Meh, there are a select few I like, that select few is slim, really just Cowboy Bebop, Ghost in the Shell, and one I cannot remember the name of for the life of me, though I never seek them out actively. I was also mostly tackling JRPG stereotypes.

I find myself in pretty much the same situation. I actually dislike more anime than I like. That said, I've seen quite a lot and it does inspire some of my characters. Even then I don't scream "IROOOOOOOOOOON HEAAAAAAAAAAAAAART SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURGE!"

4chan had it as a censor for wapanese. The word itself is overused, it's actually used for insulting the annoying fans. A quote of urban dictionary summarize it best.

Edit: After 3 edits of that quote I found one that isn't just purely insulting, and is closer to the truth.

Okay, thanks. I understand its use now, but not everyone uses it in that context. It's funny because under some usages I've seen of "Weeaboo," everyone on the biggest continent on the planet counts as one.

Anime's deeply ingrained into my country's pop culture. Everybody has at least watched some of it. Then there are the really creepy otakus. Unfortunately, the way the term gets thrown around sometimes is pretty indiscriminate.

This is probably my primary reason as to why the "shounen feel," which can easily be edited out, isn't really something I have an aversion to. I don't like shounen anime in general (I intensely dislike most of it), but it's not something I have an aneurysm over if I see it in D&D.

At the end of the day, D&D is about indulging in fantasies. I don't think it's right for anyone to force anyone to have the same fantasies as them. That can get creepy really quickly. :smalleek:

Thurbane

2010-05-20, 09:06 PM

Thrice Dead Cat

2010-05-20, 09:18 PM

Group A: ToB is awesome! You simply must play with it! Non-ToB 3.5 melee is the suxx0rz!
Group B: ToB sux! It's too anime! Too wuxia! Makes melee types too magical!
Group C: who cares?

Debate closed. :smallbiggrin:

Fallacy of Oversimplification. Debate still present:smalltongue: Seriously, though, I doubt we'll ever get to the point other than "agree to disagree," but the act of debate is still enjoyable. Well, at least, for me.

Thurbane

2010-05-20, 09:25 PM

Fallacy of Oversimplification. Debate still present:smalltongue: Seriously, though, I doubt we'll ever get to the point other than "agree to disagree," but the act of debate is still enjoyable. Well, at least, for me.
..also, I'm sure there are groups D, E & F that don't fit into my categories. :smallwink:

Tinydwarfman

2010-05-20, 09:41 PM

I find myself in pretty much the same situation. I actually dislike more anime than I like.

I think this is mostly bad representation. For some reason, people assume different animes to be like each other. Do you like more T.V. shows than you dislike? Most of any medium is drivel. For all we know, japanese people took one look at General Hospital and said "Man, why does American T.V. suck so much?"
(I just realised, general hospital bears a striking resemblance to some really bad shojo stuff I saw a while ago(oh no, amnesia! oh no, scandal! oh no, walking in people kissing! You just have teenage girls instead of middle aged ones)

Also, I don't know why, but I enjoy manga much more than I do anime. Maybe it's because I can glaze over the fanservice and other crap, while anime forces you to pay attention to it...

demidracolich

2010-05-20, 09:46 PM

I also like maga because I am a fast reader and can go through it a lot faster than anime which has a set time.
As for ToB, I fall into the "ToB melee classes are awesome and the others suck" catergory.

gdiddy

2010-05-20, 10:07 PM

To be fair, these threads actually convinced me to play ToB characters.

However, when DMing grimdark European medieval fantasy, I leave out ToB, along with Psionics, Incarnum, and ToM (Except Binder, who are just too damn fun to watch a person roleplay well).

Then again, in my games casters also take Con damage equal to the spell level cast and need to also roll a Constitution check against 10 + Spell Level or become fatigued. (That is my caster fix. Wizards work very slowwwwwly and tend to gang up on each other when they're weakened.).

Honestly, if more people would play WHFRPG or AGoT RPG, I'd ditch 3.5 all together for grimdarker pastures.

Shpadoinkle

2010-05-20, 10:34 PM

So i have a very simple question that i have been confused about for a long time.

Why is ToB so Despised and Loved?

I see posts all the time that say that I BAN ToB!

And i see posts that say YOU STUPID IF BAN ToB!

As far as i can tell, the casters own everything and ToB give other classes a chance. So whats with all that hate/love? Just a simple answer please.
Because it gives fighters nice things and lets them compete with wizards, even if it's ONLY in combat, and for some reason lots of people think it's some kind of law of the universe that Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.

Roderick_BR

2010-05-20, 10:37 PM

(...) and things like "+100 to damage. Yeah, even if deliered with a fork" does not impress me so much.(...)
Well, you can do that with Power Attack (and other associated feats) already.

Boci

2010-05-20, 10:59 PM

To be fair, these threads actually convinced me to play ToB characters.

However, when DMing grimdark European medieval fantasy, I leave out ToB, along with Psionics, Incarnum, and ToM (Except Binder, who are just too damn fun to watch a person roleplay well).

Then again, in my games casters also take Con damage equal to the spell level cast and need to also roll a Constitution check against 10 + Spell Level or become fatigued. (That is my caster fix. Wizards work very slowwwwwly and tend to gang up on each other when they're weakened.).

So all arcane casters are anime mages or at the very least have a binder dip?

gdiddy

2010-05-20, 11:31 PM

Not really. Some NPCs have binder levels, but since Naberius does heal "spell drain", the synergy between the classes is limited. The game has an evoker, and three bards. Everyone else is fighter, swashbuckler, or knight.

The factotum stopped posting before I even got a chance to nerf him. :smallwink:

It's not for everyone. The strategy of "getting away with the most powerful character in the limits of the rules" is strongly discouraged in favor of roleplay-reliant characters. More XP has been handed out for roleplay, background, and social achievements than combat, by far.

However, if I'm playing high fantasy Greyhawk- or Planescape-style campaigns, bring on every splat book, every "Iyahan Hiat Sugo"-shouting, and every piece of cheese you can find.

For gritty, more lethal games, where not everyone spends 6 hours on crunch, and characters are often killed or worse, nerf the casters, bring on the sword and board. (I know. I know. 3.5 really shouldn't be the system I run these games in.)

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-21, 02:19 AM

Well, you can do that with Power Attack (and other associated feats) already.

True (and if you ask me, standard action aside, this is why I consider that maneuver not too much to be level 9).

On the other hand, power attack can deliver that much damage but at least, even if the 2d4, d10 or d12 of the weapon does not matter so much, threat range and multipliers can bring down that big damage to the basics of weapon mechanics.

I have to say that 4th Edition and Pathfinder handled this better (of course they did: they came later :smalltongue:), say: vital strike greataxe crit for 7d12 +180, or x[w] + str fighter strikes make sense because weapon damage in different extent still matters.

Ozymandias9

2010-05-21, 02:25 AM

Because it gives fighters nice things and lets them compete with wizards, even if it's ONLY in combat, and for some reason lots of people think it's some kind of law of the universe that Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.

Devil's Advocate:
Its not that we want fighters not to have nice things, its that I want the balance point to be Tier 4 or 5, not 2 or 3 (and certainly not 1).

ToB is fairly well balanced to Tier 3, and not everyone wants to play at that high a level for every game.

Thurbane

2010-05-21, 02:30 AM

Well, you can do that with Power Attack (and other associated feats) already.
I'd be really surprised if you could power attack for +100 with a fork..

You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks).
...assuming we are talking about the eating utensil, and not a polearm. :smalltongue:

lsfreak

2010-05-21, 02:37 AM

Devil's Advocate:
Its not that I want fighters not to have nice things, its that I want the balance point to be Tier 4 or 5, not 2 or 3 (and certainly not 1).

Counter-Devil's Advocate:
You find it fun when either
- every encounter includes one PC sitting on the sidelines twiddling thumbs (or essentially doing so, with their 1d8 bow damage or 2 ranks in diplomacy)
- the encounters are tailored specifically to the group's abilities, likely leading to homogeny in encounters due to the limits of what each player can do

Because at T4/5, you're going to have one of the two problems. T3 is good enough that everyone can probably do something worthwhile in an given encounter, or at the very least had the option of doing something had they done something minor differently ('option' not meaning that the fighter has the 'option' to put ranks into diplomacy, because in order to be a good fighter that's not an option).

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-21, 02:37 AM

I'd be really surprised if you could power attack for +100 with a fork..

Yeah.. a point that I was missing. I made an example about different TH weapons, but this could lead to nonsensical situations.

Thurbane

2010-05-21, 02:44 AM

Yeah.. a point that I was missing. I made an example about different TH weapons, but this could lead to nonsensical situations.
Yeah, I got your drift, I was just being a little silly! :smallbiggrin:

gdiddy

2010-05-21, 02:48 AM

Thrice Dead Cat

2010-05-21, 02:57 AM

Combat isn't the end-all-be-all of RPGs.

But it sure is fun! And that's not even getting into things like Exalted's social combat.:smalltongue:

Greenish

2010-05-21, 03:54 AM

Ozymandias9

2010-05-21, 04:10 AM

Counter-Devil's Advocate:
You find it fun when either
- every encounter includes one PC sitting on the sidelines twiddling thumbs (or essentially doing so, with their 1d8 bow damage or 2 ranks in diplomacy)
- the encounters are tailored specifically to the group's abilities, likely leading to homogeny in encounters due to the limits of what each player can do

Because at T4/5, you're going to have one of the two problems. T3 is good enough that everyone can probably do something worthwhile in an given encounter, or at the very least had the option of doing something had they done something minor differently ('option' not meaning that the fighter has the 'option' to put ranks into diplomacy, because in order to be a good fighter that's not an option).

Personally, when I'm aiming for such a game, it's usually the later option: the former I reserve almost exclusively for heavy-simulationist role playing. And I've found it's not a bad option for a beer and pretzels game, where your job as a DM is to make the game a well structured outlet for socialization rather than an avenue for strategic play. (I would certainly recommend Tier 3 or above for less casual games).

And moreover, you're making the assumption that someone has to be a "good fighter." I'll be the first to admit that the fighter damage progression is too low at any given level of optimization. But for a more casual game, you don't need an ubercharger.

There are some games where the standard actually is full-attack each round with some minor flavoring. And there are even games where that is a good thing because it adds simplicity. They're bash in the door, lead you by the nose games-- and they're occasionally fun. And while it is possible to play a caster in such a game without eclipsing others, the people playing a mundane class in such a game may well be looking for simplicity. ToB offers the opposite-- a more complex system to give them caster-like options for higher levels of play.

In such a situation, allowing both warblade and fighter is likely going to end up with one player being eclipsed by another simply because ToB is so hard to do poorly.

FatR

2010-05-21, 04:11 AM

In some cases, you're right. However things like Planar Shepherd actually are overpowered. D&D can't actually handle a game as high powered as it would be if all classes were brought up to Planar Shepherd level. You want that level of power? Play Exalted.
Not really relevant to the thread, but Exalted cannot handle the level of power typical for normal high-level, mild-optimization DnD games and the whole combat system disintegrates as you approach it.

Greenish

2010-05-21, 04:14 AM

I'll be the first to admit that the fighter damage progression is too low at any given level of optimization.I'll have to disagree, though I'm not quite sure what you mean by "any given level of optimization". Regardless, lack of damage isn't why fighters are considered a poor class, it's the lack of anything else.

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-21, 04:16 AM

FatR

2010-05-21, 04:19 AM

I wonder if they did not go for feats because they could not fix the system that way.

They put out several books filled with feats for melee characters which did little to close the power gap between the Monk and Fighter and full casters. After trying for at least 3 or 4 books, giving the system a complete overhaul seems like a reasonable course of action.
They produced almost no high-level feats, though and those they did produce were inadequate. And some archetype-enabling (Swift Hunter) or finally giving melee much-needed options (Travel Devotion, IIRC) feats were published very late in 3.5 product cycle.

Greenish

2010-05-21, 04:23 AM

Come on, fighter have some control trick, too (AOOs + trip, fear based effects).Granted, you get to actually choose a trick for your pony from a short list. Still, the point was that damage isn't the problem. Fighter charger can outdamage most all ToB classes (if they use maneuvers instead of just charging themselves).

Ozymandias9

2010-05-21, 04:47 AM

I'll have to disagree, though I'm not quite sure what you mean by "any given level of optimization". Regardless, lack of damage isn't why fighters are considered a poor class, it's the lack of anything else.

Actually, you're right about the damage-- a highly optimized charger is good damage. I should have said at most levels of optimization.

Narrow capacity is a trait shared by tiers 4 and 5. The difference is that tier 5 can't fulfill that capacity well outside of very specific requirements (the ability to charge on a given terrain, for example). If a fighter were good enough to reliably contribute to damage at appropriate levels, he would be tier 4.

And my basic point was that, if you're aiming for a 4-5 game, ToB may be inappropriate: it's filled to the brim with solid T3s that have lots of options. It's going to require a player to be just at good at pulling their punches without being blatant as it would if they were a caster. And because of they do have more options, they're not necessarily an option for every player (for example, the player choosing a T4-5 mundane because they want the simplicity of a full attack).

Aside: As to what I meant by "any given level of optimization:" Start at an straight-from-the-box weapon focus build. Go incrementally through levels of CharOp: i.e. the player that notices feat synergies, the player the looks through several sourcebooks to find synergy, the player that plans out the whole build, and finally the player that reads and understands the execution builds presented at CharOp boards.

Now compare to a damage driven rogue build at each level, or a warlock build at each level. Until you reach the point where the player in question is sophisticated enough that they're working on variations of proven builds (like an ubercharger), the fighter will generally fall behind. The builds like the ubercharger setup work by further narrowing the fighter's capacity (i.e. it only works when charging is an option), where as the T4 damage builds of the same sophistication don't require such sacrifices.

Thus the fighter is forced to be not just a damage dealer, but either an inconsistent one or a sub-par one.

TLDR?: IMO, if you're balancing 3/2, use ToB for mundanes. If you're balancing 3/4, they can work as long as the 4 players aren't particularly unskilled at their roles. But if there's a particularly green 4 or if there's a 5 in the group, the classes ToB was designed to replace will likely be more balanced.

Boci

2010-05-21, 06:36 AM

Not really. Some NPCs have binder levels, but since Naberius does heal "spell drain", the synergy between the classes is limited. The game has an evoker, and three bards. Everyone else is fighter, swashbuckler, or knight.

Are you sure you aren't missing a "not" from the "does heal "spell drain"".

It's not for everyone. The strategy of "getting away with the most powerful character in the limits of the rules" is strongly discouraged in favor of roleplay-reliant characters.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive, and can sometimes be mutally inclusive. With a wizard of genius level inteligence, you'd think he would want to find a way to stop his spells killing him.

More XP has been handed out for roleplay, background, and social achievements than combat, by far.

A fighter/swashbuckler/knight are no better at any of the above than the wizard/binder/anime mage. In fact the latter is better at some due to possessing a higher int and thus more skill points. Plus wizards have many powerful options outside of combat.

Heliomance

2010-05-21, 08:57 AM

Are you sure you aren't missing a "not" from that "these two thing are mutually exclusive"?

Lycanthromancer

2010-05-21, 10:04 AM

Combat isn't the end-all-be-all of RPGs.Correct. Which is another reason why tier 3 is excellent; in tiers 4 and 5, you'll likely have most characters sitting out while one character takes care of the out-of-battle stuff (whether that one is dealing with a social encounter, dealing with a trap, or handling something else). Everyone should be vaguely useful in a fight, and tiers 4 and 5 can generally either be useful in combat (where they're likely to be killed if they're not) or out of combat (where they're likely not to be, traps notwithstanding).

Ergo, most are going to be geared for a fight, and will be playing XBOX whenever they're not in one.

It can be assumed that in a tier 4 or 5 game, therefore, that most encounters WILL be combat, wherein a tier 3 or higher game you'll likely have a more even spread.

Boci

2010-05-21, 10:06 AM

Are you sure you aren't missing a "not" from that "these two thing are mutually exclusive"?

Ah, irony. We meet again you sadistic *****.

acid_ninja

2010-05-21, 11:25 AM

For my money I quite dig ToB. I'm DMing with a bunch of very green players but the one guy who has caught on the quickest is playing a cleric and, guess what, he's starting to steal the show. The rogue gets to move around into position for SA and the battle-sorcerer and ranger have two different attack styles but the fighter just goes up and rolls attacks over and over. Partly this is my fault as the DM - I should be creating encounters where the enemies do more than just hit you (this is my first time DMing, I'm working on it) but what I like about ToB is the fact that it gives melee classes more options.

As for it being anime, the effing monk is core and it doesn't get much more anime than that

Gnaeus

2010-05-21, 11:42 AM

As for it being anime, the effing monk is core and it doesn't get much more anime than that

Its true. Screaming like a young girl while being sexually assaulted by monsters with tentacles is in fact the role that the monk is best qualified to perform, and that is an anime classic.

On the other hand, I think as it relates to ToB people are usually talking more about heroic anime.

Ozymandias9

2010-05-21, 01:48 PM

It can be assumed that in a tier 4 or 5 game, therefore, that most encounters WILL be combat, wherein a tier 3 or higher game you'll likely have a more even spread.

That's fair, though I would say that many tier 4s have at least one out of combat option you can highlight.

But more generally, the point of ToB seems to have been to create melee alternatives for T5 classes that were T3. And as JaronK pointed out when he presented the Tier system, there are many people who view Tier 4 as the balance point rather than Tier 3 (though Tier 3 seems to have a strong majority).

Moreover, the classes are designed in a way that is more palatable to mechanically sophisticated players. So we have the sophisticated players, who are likely to jump almost a tier starting a tier above the less sophisticated players, who may fall almost a tier.

When I have to deal with that situation, I generally discourage ToB. I do the same for Tiers 1 and 2, and most Tier 3s. When I'm running to a higher level of play, I do the same for 5s and most 4s.

Pluto

2010-05-21, 02:03 PM

Counter-Devil's Advocate:
You find it fun when either
- every encounter includes one PC sitting on the sidelines twiddling thumbs (or essentially doing so, with their 1d8 bow damage or 2 ranks in diplomacy)
- the encounters are tailored specifically to the group's abilities, likely leading to homogeny in encounters due to the limits of what each player can do
Counter-Counter-Devil's Advocate:

In a game emphasizing player ingenuity over tactical skill or rules mastery, the options specifically listed in the rulebooks are not the only options available to a character.

(I'm talking about games where a Fighter can hurl his haversack into an Orc's face to knock him off balance and then kick him down a set of stairs or where the Monk might try to pluck a fighter's eye out, all Kill Bill style.)

Tome of Battle, by providing powerful options in-game, tends to reduce character actions to "I use Maneuver X, then I use Counter Y, then I recover maneuvers and charge, then I use Boost Z and full attack." While this is a dramatic improvement over "I attack again," it reduces the necessity of innovative play and can make that style of creative, off-the-cuff thinking fade from a game.

Disclaimer:
I'm not claiming this style of play is better than others; it's just the kind that I try to encourage in my own games.
I'm not claiming that using maneuvers excludes elaborate descriptions of combat or anything like that.
I'm just saying that when I've used Tome of Battle in my games, combats became less involved -- settings and situations became almost irrelevant to the actions of the player characters.

Boci

2010-05-21, 02:07 PM

(I'm talking about games where a Fighter can hurl his haversack into an Orc's face to knock him off balance and then kick him down a set of stairs

So a bullrush attempt? With bonuses depending on how generous the DM is based on the players description of the action.

or where the Monk might try to pluck a fighter's eye out, all Kill Bill style.)

Thats really cool, until the monsters do it to your character.

Tome of Battle, by providing powerful options in-game, tends to reduce character actions to "I use Maneuver X, then I use Counter Y, then I recover maneuvers and charge, then I use Boost Z and full attack." While this is a dramatic improvement over "I attack again," it reduces the necessity of innovative play and can make that style of creative, off-the-cuff thinking fade from a game.

If someone did these kind of things before they used ToB, they are going to use it with ToB as well. If they didn't use them, then there is no disadvantage to ToB.

Besides, these things all look cool, but the requirement of player ingenuity and DM aproval makes them troublesome, and they can really slow sessions down when the players disagree with the DM, so whilst they have potential, few groups are well suited to use them.

lsfreak

2010-05-21, 03:01 PM

In a game emphasizing player ingenuity over tactical skill or rules mastery, the options specifically listed in the rulebooks are not the only options available to a character.

(I'm talking about games where a Fighter can hurl his haversack into an Orc's face to knock him off balance and then kick him down a set of stairs or where the Monk might try to pluck a fighter's eye out, all Kill Bill style.)

I agree, but at that point we're outside of RAW and can no longer discuss it in the same fashion.

Also, my point was that of Lycanthomancer's, and at T5 and often at T4, you simply can't do non-combat features. What's the fighter good at out of combat? I'm asking this seriously. In RP-heavy games, it seems like Fighters and friends are even worse-off, because they lack roleplaying tools in the form of skill points. They can be roleplayed, but classes that are closer to T3 - and therefore have more out-of-combat options - can be better roleplayed out of combat without handwaving flaws in the classes.

Prodan

2010-05-21, 07:20 PM

Its true. Screaming like a young girl while being sexually assaulted by monsters with tentacles is in fact the role that the monk is best qualified to perform, and that is an anime classic.

Speaking of tentacles, Evard's Black Tentacles is also a core spell.

Terazul

2010-05-21, 07:25 PM

If someone did these kind of things before they used ToB, they are going to use it with ToB as well. If they didn't use them, then there is no disadvantage to ToB.

Besides, these things all look cool, but the requirement of player ingenuity and DM aproval makes them troublesome, and they can really slow sessions down when the players disagree with the DM, so whilst they have potential, few groups are well suited to use them.

This. Especially that last part. Example:

Player: "I use my 'Kick that Sucka' maneuver I got from class features. I make this check and he gets knocked down the stairs."
DM: "Ok."

compared to

Player: "I totally throw my bag at him to knock him down the stairs."
DM: "...Uhh. What kind of check is this again?"
Player: "Well It's heavy, it should be able to knock him over or something."
DM: "I guess you roll an attack roll, and then he can make a save to resist getting knocked over and--"
Player: "Wah? No way it should take all that."
DM: "Look man, you want to throw it or not?"

Now that's not to say every DM will be this unreasonable, or won't allow a little leeway here or there. But it's harder to argue with "I have this thing that specifically does this thing" than random things made up on the spot. Can lead to inconsistent rulings, and all sorts of nonsense. Not to say ToB stops you from doing this. But at least you have a few clear-cut things on what you're capable of if those fall through. Most of the time.

Divide by Zero

2010-05-21, 07:27 PM

Player: "I use my 'This is Sparta!!!' maneuver I got from class features. I make this check and he gets knocked down the stairs."

Fixed for you

Optimator

2010-05-22, 12:18 AM

Combat isn't the end-all-be-all of RPGs.

True, although this is D&D we're talking about.

sonofzeal

2010-05-22, 12:31 AM

This. Especially that last part. Example:

Player: "I use my 'Kick that Sucka' maneuver I got from class features. I make this check and he gets knocked down the stairs."
DM: "Ok."

compared to

Player: "I totally throw my bag at him to knock him down the stairs."
DM: "...Uhh. What kind of check is this again?"
Player: "Well It's heavy, it should be able to knock him over or something."
DM: "I guess you roll an attack roll, and then he can make a save to resist getting knocked over and--"
Player: "Wah? No way it should take all that."
DM: "Look man, you want to throw it or not?"

Now that's not to say every DM will be this unreasonable, or won't allow a little leeway here or there. But it's harder to argue with "I have this thing that specifically does this thing" than random things made up on the spot. Can lead to inconsistent rulings, and all sorts of nonsense. Not to say ToB stops you from doing this. But at least you have a few clear-cut things on what you're capable of if those fall through. Most of the time.
I wouldn't even call that unreasonable DMing. If someone asks to do something awesome, like grab a harpoon sticking through their torso and try to run up its rope to get to the harpooners (note: real example, from one of my games), I'll let them roll dice. It's going to be a lot of dice, and they're going to have to roll really well, but I'll let them try.

But having a framework of stuff they can do right off the bat helps a lot.

Pluto

2010-05-22, 12:57 AM

So a bullrush attempt? With bonuses depending on how generous the DM is based on the players description of the action.
Are you sure? I thought that would just leave the target standing at the top of the stairs, unless the attacker had a combination of Knockback and Knockdown feats.

Now that's not to say every DM will be this unreasonable, or won't allow a little leeway here or there. But it's harder to argue with "I have this thing that specifically does this thing" than random things made up on the spot.
I completely agree. It takes much more work and it seems to go against the spirit of 3.X design, but I do find it to be a more rewarding way to play.

I don't know how representative my experience is, but most groups that I've stuck around in have taken RAW more as suggestions than as gospel -- I'm pretty sure that more rulings happen off-the-cuff than by-the-books. (Actually, I'm not certain that anyone I play with actually owns any of the books.)

Tome of Battle exaggerates the differences between these mentalities, so it doesn't work well in my regular games. Playing with other groups, I love it because I get bored choosing only between 1) attack, 2) charge or 3) attempt whichever combat maneuver I chose to specialize in.

My point is only that Tier 3 classes are not ubiquitously superior to Tier 4 and 5 classes in terms of gameplay experience, and that Tome of Battle isn't a universal improvement to a gaming circle.

Greenish

2010-05-22, 02:39 AM

Tome of Battle isn't a universal improvement to a gaming circle.RAWR! Burn the heretic! Death to the unbelievers!

Shademan

2010-05-22, 02:45 AM

Its true. Screaming like a young girl while being sexually assaulted by monsters with tentacles is in fact the role that the monk is best qualified to perform, and that is an anime classic.

On the other hand, I think as it relates to ToB people are usually talking more about heroic anime.

Monks have some very unique initiation rites...

Boci

2010-05-22, 05:52 AM

Monks have some very unique initiation rites...

That is the initiation rite for monk 7, or at least it may as well be.

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-22, 02:20 PM

As I said, I use and allow ToB but I agree with pluto here. This is connected with my personal experience.

In fact, I once had a player that loved fighter, and played them since before 3rd edition (since BECMI, actually) and he's a very imaginative and smart person, and invented several ways to overcome challenge with a proper selection of maneuvers, equipment (In truth, he was more equipped than other players at high levels but this is not a great deal) and imagination.

He lead raised his fighter up to level 40, and I managed to fit to the basic maneuvers of the PH (trip, disarm and so on) every thing that came in his mind. With 0 time. I guess that now could be even easier for us with Pathfinder CMB and CMD (the good old "yes you can with -4).

My current fighter player (Knight //Fighter /Warblade) is not as imaginative, AT LEAST IN THAT SENSE. She lacks of the skill of improvisation in Her full attacks or maneuvers. Nevertheless, she likes maneuvers once I gave her ToB and managed to use them very efficently (at the level of "what" and "when") during her turn.

So, she's not noob.. simply, in her mind, the maneuver system models better her way of conceive her warrior.

So, ToB is a great thing because people conceive variety and flexibility in different ways.

If you ask me, I prefer the former system: I fear that the second one (maneuvers) lead to a risk of narrowness of mind, and to a lack of flexibility. Designers should encourage heroic actions in different way that simply add narrow mechanics (like happens in fourth edition, but sadly, started in 3rd with the "you need the improved bathroom feat to properly make poo").

Lycanthromancer

2010-05-22, 02:24 PM

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-22, 02:48 PM

But you can't necessarily blame that on the system. Some people aren't quite as imaginative as others. I'm sure if you gave Player #1 access to ToB he'd still use those clever things even so.

You are probably right: I have to say that at the time, I didn't know the book (here in Italy does not exist a translation, you have to acquire it through other means like amazon, and I actually paid attention to it thanks to these boards). Boci already pointed out what you said, above.

Moreover, the book brings in things that you couldn't simply perform by other means (like the swif action jump of my beloved Sudden Leap, the swiss knife of maneuvers). So, it is an improvement anyway (barring the fact that one thing I like of 3.5 is subsystems, so another one to learn is more fun).

Nevertheless, I only wonder if there coud be a more flexible and elegant way to obtain the same effects as a basic mechanic (wanna jump as a swif action? -15 to the check)

Boci

2010-05-22, 03:00 PM

Nevertheless, I only wonder if there coud be a more flexible and elegant way to obtain the same effects as a basic mechanic (wanna jump as a swif action? -15 to the check)

Sure. Rewrite swift jump to "You can make a swift jump without the usual -15 penalty" and make it no longer require 1 other tiger claw maneuvers for preqs.

Irreverent Fool

2010-05-22, 08:34 PM

My current fighter player (Knight //Fighter /Warblade) is not as imaginative, AT LEAST IN THAT SENSE. She lacks of the skill of improvisation in Her full attacks or maneuvers. Nevertheless, she likes maneuvers once I gave her ToB and managed to use them very efficently (at the level of "what" and "when") during her turn.

So, she's not noob.. simply, in her mind, the maneuver system models better her way of conceive her warrior.

So, ToB is a great thing because people conceive variety and flexibility in different ways.

If you ask me, I prefer the former system: I fear that the second one (maneuvers) lead to a risk of narrowness of mind, and to a lack of flexibility. Designers should encourage heroic actions in different way that simply add narrow mechanics (like happens in fourth edition, but sadly, started in 3rd with the "you need the improved bathroom feat to properly make poo").

So the problem you cite is with 3.x as a system and not with the Tome of Battle? I agree in this case. 3.x ditched improvisation in favor of having a ruleset that didn't differ drastically from group to group. ToB is just a branching out that grants more options within this narrow system. I feel it's an improvement to 3.x, but I don't think having these options narrows improvisation any more than the system already did.

Kaiyanwang

2010-05-23, 07:43 AM

So the problem you cite is with 3.x as a system and not with the Tome of Battle? I agree in this case. 3.x ditched improvisation in favor of having a ruleset that didn't differ drastically from group to group. ToB is just a branching out that grants more options within this narrow system. I feel it's an improvement to 3.x, but I don't think having these options narrows improvisation any more than the system already did.

Sure, but if one observes the development of the system through the year, we went from generalization to "power X" (from AD&D to 4th edition, starting the requirment syndrome in 3rd).

Boci

2010-05-23, 09:36 AM

Sure, but if one observes the development of the system through the year, we went from generalization to "power X" (from AD&D to 4th edition, starting the requirment syndrome in 3rd).

I've never gotten this argument of:
If you are not given anything interesting to do, hyou will come up with your own methods, therefor not being given anything interesting to do is superior to being given something interesting to do.

You can use ToB and still have improvisation. There are three important things needed for this:
1. Allow everyone to use bullrush, disarm, overrun, sunder and trip without provoking attacks of opertunity. (Adjust improved version of feats as neccisary)
2. Have a DM who knows how to make interesting enviormental obsticals. You can be the most creative fighter ever. You are still only going to charge and full attack in a series of 20 by 10 dungeon rooms.
3. Have an understanding between the players and DM on what the latter will accept. A list of 5-10 examples should be fine.

Arguably a fourth require is teamwork:
Picture the following situation: Warblade wands to throw a treasure chest at the ogre guard standing at the top of the stairs. The DM rules it is a touch attack that will deal 1d4 + 0.5 strength modifier damage and will initiative a bullrush attempt. The warblade can power attack, trading to hit in return for a bonus on the opposed strength roll.
The warblade hits and wins the opposed check knocking the ogre down the 60ft stair case. DM rolls a reflex save for the ogre to catch himself and fails. He rules the ogre will take damage as if he had fallen half the distance, so 3d6. He rolls a tumble check to reduce the "falling" damage and fails. The ogre has now taken on average 13 + 0.5 strength mod damage.

What was the point of that? The warblade, or a fighter, could do more damage on a charge. Its only worth it if his other team mates step in. I.e. the wizard casting web/greace on the stairs.

So improvisation is possible, but its very hard and takes a lot of work. Maybe people do not do it with ToB because they feel they no longer need to do it, and are actually greatful for that.

Knaight

2010-05-23, 11:42 AM

Alternately, steal Burning Wheels combat system, which makes it actually useful to try the various specials and not do the same thing over and over.

Caphi

2010-05-23, 12:10 PM

Creativity with the Book of Weeaboo?

I've seen a player use a missile as a weapon for burning blade, and then use the fireball as a signal flare.

I've seen two swordsages chain shadow jaunt to get one onto the back of a dragon that the party couldn't reach.

The number of ways you can use the scent ability of hunter's sense, the spider climb of dance of the spider, or the short-range flight of salamander charge are staggering.

These are things I basically thought of in the last minute or so. I could bring more for you if I would open the book.

Extra tools expand creativity, they don't stifle it.

742

2010-05-23, 02:06 PM

as for anime: fighter/rogue jumps off of a three hundred foot tower and stabs the bad guy; contingent spell (some healing idr exactly what) goes off on the PC upon landing. 18 seconds later theyre still fighting. you would never see anything like that in anime.:smalltongue:

in combat creativity: that relies almost completely on the DM and the setting but, maneuvers that involve things like teleportation and fire add a lot of flexibility to this sort of thing

as for out of combat: skill points! beyond the "yeah i literally couldnt escape a wet paper bag, this is full plate. you might have trouble getting me into the bag though." situation skills other than hitting things (and where they might have acquired such skills) can be really really good for character development or just having a deep character. thats part of the reason i never do a backstory longer than three sentences for a level 1 character (im not a bad player; its just all either excessively dark, boring and cliche, too high power to be in a L1 PCs past, or waaaaaay too close to home-and by age 18 i was certainly more than a L1 character. maybe my DM just let me take too many flaws or misplaced some 0s on my stats.)
maybe your group suddenly finds themselves needing to sneak into the castle during the masquerade ball security will be tight so this group wont be able to get in without an invitation-but the rogue didnt put any points into forgery! they sound pretty ****ed except wait what? whats your honorable warrior type doing? holy **** thats a perfect forgery! we only saw an original for a few minutes earlier today!
also mobility focused maneuvers/stances like short distance teleportation spider climb and the ability to destroy inanimate objects quickly can be very useful for out of combat stuff; especially sneaking past guards.